Image 01 Image 03

Trump’s Trade Deal Could Rescue UK Amid EU Bullying Over Brexit

Trump’s Trade Deal Could Rescue UK Amid EU Bullying Over Brexit

German Chancellor Merkel demands open-borders as precondition for any future EU-UK trade agreement

With German Chancellor Angela Merkel threatening U.K. with tough trade negotiations — or ‘hard Brexit, — for daring to leave the E.U., the Trump presidency has come at a very opportune time for the beleaguered British government. President-elect Donald Trump’s proposed U.S.-U.K. trade deal could destroy EU’s designs, Professor Ted Malloch said, the man tapped to be the next U.S. ambassador to the E.U. in the Trump administration while talking to the British newspaper Daily Express.

Malloch, who is reportedly being vetted by the presidential transition team, was optimistic about a bilateral trade agreement once U.K. formally leaves the union. “I would hope on the day Britain triggers Article 50 [formal notification of withdrawal from the E.U.], Mrs. May will be able to announce we’ve just started discussions with the United States – an even larger market for free trade,” Malloch said.

On Monday, President-elect Trump made a similar promise with regard to a bilateral trade deal in an interview given to the British newspaper The Times:

The UK is “doing great” following its vote to leave the EU, US President-elect Donald Trump has said.

In his first UK interview – with former Justice Secretary Michael Gove for the Times – Mr Trump said he thought the UK was “so smart in getting out”.

Mr Trump promised a quick trade deal between the US and the UK after he takes office on Friday.

Mr Trump added: “Countries want their own identity and the UK wanted its own identity, but I do think if they hadn’t been forced to take in all of the refugees then you wouldn’t have a Brexit.”

In Malloch’s view, President-elect Trump regards the E.U. as a “supra-national organisation that is extremely bureaucratic [and] serves the interests of elite globalists.” Daily Express writes:

Ted Malloch, who has met with Mr Trump and is being linked with the role as his EU envoy, has claimed the President-elect is “committed” to the deal and it is up to Mrs May to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty so the process can get underway.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Professor Malloch said: “I believe he is committed, as many of us have suggested to him, that such a deal could be done. And, if you want to do something you can facilitate it and it can be done in an expeditious manner.

“I would hope on the day Britain triggers Article 50, Mrs May will be able to announce we’ve just started discussions with the United States – an even larger market for free trade.”

German Chancellor Merkel wants to set an example by punishing the people of Britain for their ‘insubordination’. Last week, Merkel reiterated her stand that UK will not ‘fully access the single market without free movement of people’.

The German leader is more worried about a rearguard action by other E.U. members, especially East European countries, who are opposed to her open borders doctrine. “You can imagine how all countries will put conditions on free movement with other countries. And that would create an extremely difficult situation,” Merkel told German business leaders last October.

Yesterday, President-elect Trump criticised Chancellor Merkel’s open-door policy on migrants in an interview with German newspaper Bild. “I think she made one very catastrophic mistake and that was taking all of these illegals, you know, taking all of the people from wherever they come from.” In 2015 alone, Germany took in more than a million migrants from Arab and Muslim countries. Mass-migration has unleashed an epidemic of sexual assaults and a wave of Islamist terrorism in Germany.

E.U.’s tough talk on Brexit shows that Merkel and E.U. juggernauts haven’t fully grasped the changed reality around them. If President Obama was threatening to punish U.K.’s leave vote by putting it “at the back of the queue” in any future trade negotiations, President-elect Trump is offering to sign a trade deal with U.K. for the very same reason.

A European Union, coming apart at the seams under pressure from chronic currency crisis and nationalist movements from within, is in no position of offering a unified front while negotiating UK’s exit.

VIDEO: Merkel defends her stance on mass-migration, after Trump slams her refugee policy:

[Cover image courtesy Channel 4, Youtube]


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


If Merkel doesn’t want to cooperate, Trump can remove our troops from Germany… I am tired of paying for their security while they spend their money on socialism!

    pwaldoch in reply to Kaffa. | January 17, 2017 at 12:43 pm

    Unfortunately, that weakens the US presence in Europe and as a check against Russian aggression and eventual ISIS aggression outside of middle east.

      tom swift in reply to pwaldoch. | January 17, 2017 at 1:17 pm

      eventual ISIS aggression outside of middle east.

      You mean, like, inside of Germany?

      I think Merkel’s Germany has already failed in that department.

      healthguyfsu in reply to pwaldoch. | January 17, 2017 at 3:46 pm

      ISIS won’t take over Germany….they can be voted out of the country by pissed off citizens if left to their own devices.

      Russian aggression is not that hard to monitor in the age of information…don’t need troops on the ground.

The US doesn’t need a trade deal with the UK.

The UK doesn’t need a trade deal with the EU.

All people need to do for trade is agree to terms between the parties to the trade. That’s all. Trade deals are not worthless, but they can be actually counter-productive.


You should watch the whole thing, but the last third will tell that tale.

    Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | January 17, 2017 at 4:37 pm

    All people need to do for trade is agree to terms between the parties to the trade.

    The point of trade deals is (or should be) precisely to allow them to do that. Deals (other than with communist governments that have command economies) don’t create the trade itself, they merely allow it to happen if people choose. Governments don’t agree that we’ll buy so much of this if you’ll buy so much of that, they agree that we’ll allow our residents to buy so much of this from your residents, if you’ll allow yours to buy so much of that from ours.

    Obviously the ideal deal is a free trade agreement, i.e. one that says our people can buy from each other whatever they like of anything they like; but no deal usually means people in different countries can’t buy anything from each other, which is bad.

    Or we could adopt unilateral free trade, which tells the world that if you want to go on restricting your residents’ natural right to buy whatever they like from anyone they like, and thus raising their cost of living, we can’t do anything about it, but we’re no longer going to hold our own residents’ rights hostage to your decisions. Result: more freedom, lower cost of living, but unless other countries follow suit exports plummet, first because they don’t allow their people to buy from us, and then because their people can no longer afford to buy anything from anyone. Overall this is still a net good for us, but it causes a lot of disruption as jobs are lost on an even larger scale than they did in the last few decades; the gains, though, are greater than these losses, and can be used to compensate the losers.

    This fake trade deal announcement with the Brits is just one more “For Show Only” announcement which accomplishes nothing except to get the excitable Trumpsters going to give Trump credit where credit has not been earned. What is better about this deal than the well-considered TPP?

    Trade deals that have been worked on recently, such as TPP, have extensive details, such as the two-foot high stack of pages that eliminate old trade tariffs. The Pact also addresses modernizing NAFTA, since the US, Mexico and Canada are all signatories of TPP.

Reagan / Thatcher
Trump / May

    Ragspierre in reply to VaGentleman. | January 17, 2017 at 1:34 pm

    I hope to gawd for the sake of the people of GB that May is NOT to Thatcher as T-rump is to Reagan.

    VaGentleman in reply to VaGentleman. | January 17, 2017 at 9:57 pm

    Reagan and Thatcher focused on what they could do together, not what their differences were. If Trump / May take the same approach it should help them both. Like Reagan / Thatcher the times they live in provide some real opportunities. It’s life. You can make a perfect marriage with an imperfect partner if you work at it. If you demand a perfect partner, you’ll be sad and disappointed.

      Ragspierre in reply to VaGentleman. | January 18, 2017 at 8:04 am

      Reagan and Thatcher each held a very high set of conservative values. These included individual liberty and respect for the power of market economics. Regardless of the times they lived in, those values would have served them and their respective nations well.

      I hope May does, too. We know that T-rump does NOT.

        VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | January 18, 2017 at 8:18 pm

        Unfortunately for your arguments, such as they are, Trump and May are the only 2 people in the world who can forge a Reagan / Thatcher alliance. They are, simultaneously and individually, the most conservative and most liberal leaders who could be elected. The mythical conservative of which you dream either didn’t run or was rejected. That they were both elected in a popular revolt against the ruling elites in both countries validates my observation that there is a chance for them to unite and do great things. And they don’t have to buy into your world view to achieve greatness.

          I’m getting a little tired of the conservative-bashing. As a Constitutional conservative, I find it aggravating and more than a little confusing. Conservatives are not “mythical,” we are very real. And without our vote, Trump would not have won.

          Since his winning the nomination and then the election, most of us have been supportive and want to wait and see what he does. We truly want him to succeed. That some conservatives are not open to that because of Trump’s long history of supporting progressive and/or totalitarian policy and idea/ls is a good thing. It’s good for our country, and frankly, it’s good for Trump.

          When Trump says things that send chills down the spines of conservatives, you can bet that he’s pushing an envelope that he doesn’t want to push. Recent examples of Trump getting a bit too close to that envelope:

          1. Trump declaring that Americans want great jobs deals and don’t care about what they are or if they are conservative, that we don’t care if we have a federal government engaged in central planning with American business.

          2. Trump declaring that he will have regular and “great” military parades in DC to “show” the military to the world. That he will have the military showing their strength by flying over NYC and DC. Military parades!? To show our military strength? Seriously? Who does that? Or would you rather not think about who does that?

          3. Trump declaring that he’s going to make sure that there is health insurance for “everybody.” Nothing, NOTHING, could be more onerous and stupid than conflating health care with health insurance and then pretending that once everyone is “covered,” everyone is actually getting quality (or ANY) health care. It’s not true now, and it won’t be true under Trump. Millions of people currently have health insurance but they cannot use it because of high deductibles/premiums/co-pays. They are not getting health care.

          4. Trump’s thin skin and desire to be loved and admired will lead to his embracing all sorts of things, up to and including amnesty (as long as the illegals pay “back taxes,” he says) and an unfunded child care entitlement. This is something that should worry even the mot avid Trump fans.

          5. Trump has back-peddled on issues other than immigration. He’s declared he is “open” to manmade climate change, and has (or someone on his team has) signaled to China that he will continue to work with them on forcing the reduction of carbon emission and on pushing for carbon taxes (aka cap and tax), etc.

          I could go on, but there is reason to be concerned. Raising concerns is not a red flag to me. Trying to quash any and all debate about Trump’s words and policy is a huge red flag. But then, I’m just a silly ol’ conservative dodo bird. One of two in the entire country according to you. You know, of course, that this is not true, so you continue to bash us and to try to silence us and put your hands over your ears and sing “lalala” so as not to be exposed to potential subversive ideas. That doesn’t make us silly, you know.

          Instead, listen to us. Show us that we are wrong, that Trump doesn’t really mean he’ll trot out our missiles and roll them along as our military goes goose-stepping down Pennsylvania Avenue. Explain to us how the federal government’s interference with private business is a good thing. Tell us why it’s okay to grant a path to citizenship as long as those here illegally pay back taxes. Draw us a clear picture of how the federal government is not only responsible for our health insurance but that they have to guarantee that everyone has a health insurance policy in their hot little hands.

          Stop sneering and make your case.

          Ragspierre in reply to VaGentleman. | January 19, 2017 at 8:28 am

          Logically, VaPigman, T-rump and May are the only two people on the planet that can form a “T-rump-May” alliance.

          Neither or both are capable of forming any-flucking-thing else, but T-rump is the antithesis of Reagan on so many levels, its one of your dirty jokes to pose you idiotic equivalence.

          While May is no Thatcher (she was a “Remainer” pre-Brexit) she DOES appear to be a true representative of her people, and has…to this point…been true to their vote.

          I doubt very much that experience will prove the same of T-rump. AND I expect that his cultists will continue to rationalize that with the same slavering facility they’ve shown so far in abandoning what they held as principles in favor of their “man”.

          VaGentleman in reply to VaGentleman. | January 19, 2017 at 11:03 am

          I never said conservatives are mythical. Your entire post is just another example of your propensity to create a fantasy world populated by straw men that you slay. I asked a simple question – is there a possibility that there will be a Trump / May alliance similar to the Reagan / Thatcher alliance? That’s all! From that you concoct a world in which I have to prove that Trump won’t have troops goose-stepping down PA Ave? Anyone who would offer that as a serious topic is crazy. I have a better idea – why don’t you prove you’re not insane for proposing it?

          You say you are a ‘Constitutional conservative’ (definition needed – how far to the right is that?), one of many who voted for Trump. Did you think he was a ‘Constitutional conservative’ when you voted for him? I don’t think so. Yet the balance of your post is a litany of examples of how upset you are that he is not acting like a ‘Constitutional conservative’. Well, DUH!

          Asking me to defend him is a neat rhetorical trick on your part. Sorry, I have no need to defend him to you or anyone else. I am not responsible for him or his actions. It’s impossible for me to defend him from alleged offenses that exist only in your mind. He can defend himself. Send him a tweet – you may get a surprise.

          Make my case? OK. Of the candidates available in the general election, Trump was the best choice. People who live in the real world accept that reality and move ahead, working to make the best of the situation. Those living in a fantasy world are still litigating the primary and hoping for a mythical conservative savior.

          Serious question – why do you only attack what you see as conservative bashing?

          VAGentleman, thanks for your response! I “attack” when conservatives are bashed because I take it personally (I am a Constitutional conservative, as I’ve said a zillion times). I similarly “attacked” when the TEA Party was bashed because, as a TEA Party person, I took it personally. I also find the very recent move from the right to bash, ridicule, belittle, mock and deride conservatives myopic, wrong-headed, and very very dangerous.

          You ask what a Constitutional conservative is. Here’s a decent discussion of it (the Levin quote, specifically): How far to the right am I? I’m waaaay over there, well past Ted Cruz on some issues, sort of close to Jim DeMint, but still to the right of him, too, on some issues.

          And yes, I’ve spent the past eight years complaining that Obama was not adhering to the Constitution, railing against the leftist fantasy that it is a “living” document, and arguing for limited government, liberty, and the unalienable rights of every single American. I frequently criticized President Bush (43), too, particularly when he went totally insane and pushed progressive policies that run counter not just to the spirit of the Constitution but to the very letter of it. I do not intend to stop now.

          What I am doing for the past few and next few months is trying to keep an even keel and an open mind. There are good people around Trump, conservatives I like and (sort of) trust (as far as you can trust any public figure, which isn’t that far as we’ve repeatedly learned). Trump, himself, has said plenty of things that I do agree with and think would help our country. I voted for Trump, as I’ve explained in both blog posts and in comments, because I felt that I had no other choice. I live in Florida, a must-win state for Trump last November, and there was no way I could live with having even a teensy part of Hillary Clinton becoming president.

          My vote was not a vote of confidence in Trump, much less blind allegience to his every idea, agenda item, or policy; it was a blind leap of faith that he’d at least be better for America than Hillary would have been. Frankly, had Ted Cruz won, I’d have been just as wary and just as critical of his every move or statement that raised a red flag (see above on my being to the right of him on some issues). I am no one’s fan gurl.

          Implying that because I voted for Trump, I cannot criticize him is . . . well, nuts.

          As to the goose-stepping, you’re right. Trump didn’t say that he would have the military goose-stepping in his military parades to show off our military strength. He just wants regular military parades in DC. To show off our military strength. I took a bit of poetic license on the goose-stepping because that is the first image that popped into my head when I read Trump’s word in the WaPo interview. Honestly, the bit about the military show of strength via public parades was sufficiently revolting and didn’t need my “goose-stepping” . . . it evokes that all on its own.

          And yes, if you want to bash anyone who opposes Trump and his policies, you should have a reason for supporting him and his policies. Otherwise, you are simply engaging in ad hominem attacks and character assassination. Both of which suggest that you don’t, personally, like Trump and his policies all that much either. Otherwise, why not defend him and them beyond saying that we voted him in so we are stuck with him and his more questionable policy ideas? Can you imagine where this country would be if every president who took office was uncriticized and completely free to do whatever he (or one day she) wants because, hey! Elected!?

          Living in the real world means looking at Trump’s agenda and his policies. Living in the real world does not entail turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to things he says and does that you don’t like. If that were living in the real world, the mainstream media would be composed of the most grounded, well-informed, and objective realists out there. But hey, maybe you want to live in your own version of reality? If so, more power to you. Just don’t complain that others don’t share your “reality.”

          Ragspierre in reply to VaGentleman. | January 19, 2017 at 11:39 am

          “Those living in a fantasy world are still litigating the primary and hoping for a mythical conservative savior.”

          Of all the despicable lies you related in that pile of a post, this is the most evil.

          It’s akin to saying that any criticism of Obama was founded in racism.

          The election is over. Nobody DOES NOT know this. T-rump is the POTUS as of Saturday.

          Criticism of him is PERFECTLY legitimate, and, indeed, a necessary function of anyone who calls themselves an American. Contra you and the other cultists here.

          VaGentleman in reply to VaGentleman. | January 19, 2017 at 7:31 pm

          I asked a simple question – is there a chance for a Trump / May relationship as happened with Reagan / Thatcher? Your answer was that it couldn’t happen because Trump is not a principled conservative. The issue of Trump’s conservative credentials was discussed at length in the primaries. It was discussed again by delegates at the convention, and the #NeverTrump camp made it an issue in the general election. In every instance the American voters voted for Trump and against his detractors. The issue was fully litigated in the election process, the people made their choice, and yet you continue to make it the main argument in your criticisms of him. If, by some miracle, everyone on LI woke up tomorrow morning and agreed with you, what would it change? Would the inauguration be called off, would the election be invalidated, would Hillary be propped up on the podium and sworn in? It would change nothing and yet you continue to litigate it. Why? Since it doesn’t change anything in the national landscape, it must change something in rag’s personal landscape. What is it?

          Ragspierre in reply to VaGentleman. | January 20, 2017 at 10:04 am

          IF that was really your intention, what you WROTE was a tour d’main in stupid, ineffectual communication.

          I and others here took it to suggest…and I still DO…some sort of cult-boi equivalence between Reagan and T-rump.

          Why not ask if there’s a chance of a Stalin/FDR bromance between Putin and T-rump? Seems much more supportable.

          The rest of you lies and bullshit do not dignify any answer from anyone.

          Oh, and you can count on critiques of your stinking, lying, PATHOLOGICAL Collectivist fraud from conservatives on into the future, any time it is justified. Which will be often. You’ll just have to suck it.

          VaGentleman in reply to VaGentleman. | January 21, 2017 at 5:09 am

          you caught me returning from some inaugural celebrations in DC tonight. What a great day for America!

          The question I posed was deliberately open ended. It took no position and had no pre conditions. Replies could have included discussions of the euro soviet appeasement and anti nuclear movement’s resistance to US missiles vs Islamic immigration and euro PC culture today, trade and monetary policy, etc.

          You filtered the question through your prejudices and hatred of Trump and limited your answer accordingly. In my replies I pointed out the limits you imposed on your reply – ‘they don’t have to buy into your world view to achieve greatness’. In VA we call that a CLUE. The fact that you chose to limit yourself is not my fault. The fact that you chose to limit an open ended question to only one possible interpretation is a sign of your intellectual limits, not my duplicity. The Trump / Putin question that you mockingly pose is, in fact, a serious question that all Americans should be asking. That you are dismissive of it tells us much about your lack of vision and the limits of your political view.

          In re your threats – YAWN. What are you going to do? Scream louder? Swear more? Lay on the floor and kick your heels? The fact that you make threats tells everyone just what a weak case you have. I’m not impressed and I will continue to post here as I see fit.

          Those reading your posts here would do well to remember Carl Sandburg’s advice to losing lawyers:
          “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.”
          I believe your post encompasses all of the above.

          And now I’m off to bed to sleep the sleep of the victorious warrior! Tomorrow is another day and another battle, but tonight we enjoy sweet victory!
          God Bless America!

          Ragspierre in reply to VaGentleman. | January 21, 2017 at 12:59 pm


          There was no “threat”. Not express, not implicit. Not at all.

          You’re just a lying T-rump sucker.

          Tell us all: when we criticized Barracula, was that a vacant exercise where we kicked the floor without any effect?

          Put up your post where you said that any time in the last 8 years. Or were you an Obama sucker too?

          VaGentleman in reply to VaGentleman. | January 21, 2017 at 2:31 pm

          ‘was that a vacant exercise where we kicked the floor without any effect?’ So you did vote for President Trump? If he hadn’t won, all your floor kicking would have been for naught. The positive effect came from his victory. Obama sure as hell didn’t pay attention to it, nor did Hillary. Nor would she have. It’s kinda cheap of you to try to cover yourself in the reflected glory of a man you hate by claiming some credit for a victory you tried to prevent and are now trying to delegitimize with your constant barrage of anti-Trump missives. It’s also worth noting that when I apply a logical analysis and rebuttal to your ‘points’, you quickly abandon any defense of them. Which brings us back to the question I asked above and which you dodged. Why? Why the constant barrage? It changes nothing so what do you hope to gain? Your chance to make your case.

          Ragspierre in reply to VaGentleman. | January 21, 2017 at 2:39 pm

          This crap is impenetrable gobbledygook.

          Simply insane, as well as inane.

          You’re delusional, as well as a fundamentally dishonest sucker of your Little Yellow God.

          He’ll be critiqued by those of us who are American citizens. Suck it.

          VaGentleman in reply to VaGentleman. | January 21, 2017 at 5:21 pm

          it must really suck trying to be a high end tax attorney when your reading skills are so poor. Maybe your paralegal can explain it to you. The tax code is far more complicated than anything I (or you) have posted on LI, so I’m sure someone in your office can figure it out.

          Ragspierre in reply to VaGentleman. | January 21, 2017 at 6:35 pm

          1. I am ANYTHING BUT a “tax attorney”. Typical crazy.

          2. NOBODY can penetrate you insanity.

          American citizens CRITICIZE their elected representatives.

          Cult followers hate on American citizens.

          You are the latter.

          VaGentleman in reply to VaGentleman. | January 21, 2017 at 10:34 pm

          as usual you lie about your critics because you can’t face reality about yourself. No one is questioning your right to criticize. I’m asking, again, what do you hope to gain by pointing out over and over that Trump is not your kind of conservative? He won. Your ideas were rejected. Why continue the exercise in futility?

          Ragspierre in reply to VaGentleman. | January 22, 2017 at 11:32 am

          Oh, and another thing, lying VaPigman…

          T-rump didn’t win (narrowly) because “my ideas were rejected”.

          He won because…

          1. he was running aginst the weakest possible Deemocrat, and

          2. LOTS of people who REJECT HIS IDEAS were compelled to vote for him.

          Which is hardly a rejection of conservative ideas, ideals, or any flucking-thing else.

          You lying sack of filth.

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 22, 2017 at 8:32 am

        Tell us all: when we criticized Barracula, was that a vacant exercise where we kicked the floor without any effect?

        Put up your post where you said that any time in the last 8 years. Or were you an Obama sucker too?

        T-rump is a Collectivist. A Progressive. He is NO PART a conservative, not simply “not your kind” of conservative.

        He won. Partly because he lies. Pointing those out over the next however long is not “futility”. It’s fidelity. To the truth.

        You lying cult follower.

          VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | January 23, 2017 at 12:58 am

          Ragspierre | January 22, 2017 at 8:32 am

          >Tell us all: when we criticized Barracula, was that a vacant exercise where we kicked the floor without any effect?
          Answered in my post above: VaGentleman | January 21, 2017 at 2:31 pm.

          >Put up your post where you said that any time in the last 8 years. Or were you an Obama sucker too?

          Why? To prove what to who? What changes when I prove you wrong again? Since when is supporting Trump incompatible with criticizing Obama?
          Look if you want to, you’ll find plenty.

          >T-rump is a Collectivist. A Progressive. He is NO PART a conservative, not simply “not your kind” of conservative.
          >He won. Partly because he lies. Pointing those out over the next however long is not “futility”. It’s fidelity. To the truth.

          Not true. Even if it were true, so what? He’s still the president and your rant doesn’t change anything. I knew he didn’t meet your standards when I voted for him. Your standards didn’t matter to me then and they don’t matter now. I imagine most voters would give the same reply. You’re the only one trying to elect a conservative pope of impeccable virtue. They exist only if fairy tales. Real people in the real world have warts. Thats’ especially true of politicians. If a pol does 50% of what you want, hug him.

          >You lying cult follower.

          I used to think that you ended your screeds with an insult just because you are an ass. Now I think it is a symptom of your mental disorder. You actually think it’s a powerful, meaningful rejoinder. It’s an interesting window into how you view the world. (You’re still an ass.)

          Ragspierre | January 22, 2017 at 11:32 am

          1- meaningless – he won.
          2- In the primaries, you and the anti Trump crowd argued that he wasn’t honest enough, conservative enough, experienced enough, serious enough, etc. Voters rejected those ideas and voted for him in sufficient numbers to give him the necessary majority. At the convention, you and the anti Trump crowd added ‘can’t defeat Clinton’ to the mantra. Conservatives and the establishment made a last minute run against him in the rules committee and lost. Delegates rejected those ideas again and voted him to be the candidate. In the general election, you and #NeverTrump repeated all the prior charges, you added claims that the election wasn’t binary and said you wouldn’t vote for either collectivist. You argued that no true conservative would vote for Trump. THOSE IDEAS AND ARGUMENTS WERE REJECTED BY THE VOTERS!

          There is a ton of hubris in your charge that a rejection of your IDEAS is a rejection of conservative IDEALS. What arrogance. Only in your mind are you the keeper of the flame. Only in your mind do you speak with authority on conservative dogma. Only in YOUR mind.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 23, 2017 at 7:59 am

          The vision of you slaving over that steaming pile of shit it delicious.

          You’re a cultist, and you prove it almost every day.

Merkel is afraid that she may not be able to shove her immigrants off on other countries.

Paul In Sweden | January 17, 2017 at 10:15 pm

PM May just has to threaten high tariffs on German autos and Merkel and her party will crash and burn.